The new Y1 phonics screening check

[SoundsWrite]

The government's new phonics screening check is to be launched in England in June.
The results of the test will be given to the parents of each individual child but each individual school's results will not be made public.
What is the view on Mumsnet? Do you think the results should be made public or not? Either way, why or why not?
You can find out more about this test by going to the DfE site: www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/pedagogy/a00198207/faqs-year-1-phonics-screening-check

Yes, I realise that, I don't think phonics need to be screened, I DO think there should be a specific screening test for dyslexia etc.

I also quoted the statistic about EAL - it wasn't a direct comparison, just pointing out that over-testing can be counter-productive.

Lily - It doesn't sound like you know much about dyslexia.

no 2 professionals even agree on the defn of dyslexia.

Most (but not all) don't test for dyslexia before the age of 7.

A dx of dyslexia doesn't help the teacher at all. It gives them no further information as to how to help a child.

This phonics test is a fair test to identify some children who will later be labelled with dyslexia.

Labelling kids as dyslexic early won't help nearly as much as intensive phonics interventions (or at least that is true at the moment while overlearning is more or less the only strategy used to help dyslexic kids)

And EAL kids aren't included in any stats till they've been in the country 2 years. So I don't think that conversation you reported was 100% accurate.

Do you know, the problem with a forum like this is that it makes people take entrenched positions and then defend them (I include myself in that).

I do know a fair bit about dyslexia, not everything for sure, but a fair bit. I'm not suggesting 'screening for diagnosis', more that lots of people are saying that children with dyslexia and the like are being failed, and slipping through the net, and this does seem to be a problem, so some sort of screening check that flagged up children who may be having problems like this.

Obviously it's not a diagnosis, and there is an argument that a 'label' doesn't help a child (though this is debatable, and has been highly and contentiously argued).

I don't personally think this check will fit the bill, and will certainly not recognise children who are having processing problems - having seen some children with processing problems be 'failed', because they 'can read', even though they don't understand what they're saying, I think this is as much of an issue as not getting to grips with phonics.

I also think there is a real problem with able children 'rationalising' and so getting the made up words wrong. I understand the rationale behind this, but anything that throws up wrong results needs re-assessing.

A very simple way of checking whether wrong answers are down to phonics problems, or a child trying to make 'sense' of the nonsense words would be to rejig the test a bit - instead of 20 real words to recognise, 20 made up words to recognise, have some real words to recognise, some made-up words to recognise, and some made up words to SPELL. For an able child this will not lead the rationalisation problems that reading made up words may (and certainly my dd would have been happier spelling a word rather than 'reading' a word that was made up). And would have thrown up problems like mrz's ds has.

I would be far happier about a test like that tbh. It was ds2 who made me think of it - he was writing, and was writing the word 'moon' - I said 'how do you spell that' - he said "4 letters, 3 sounds - m - then an 'ooh' sound which is oo and then n".

Which kind of proved the use of phonics to my mind! That would be a far better check imo.

more that lots of people are saying that children with dyslexia and the like are being failed, and slipping through the net, and this does seem to be a problem, so some sort of screening check that flagged up children who may be having problems like this.

Some sort of screening check - hmm, that's an idea....some sort of screening check at the end of Y1, perhaps? Definitely worth considering.

Joking aside, even Dyslexia Action won't test for dyslexia until dcs are 7 - but this screening will highlight children and ensure support is in place for them way before then.

If it does Feenie;

I don't object to checking children, and even doing some sort of phonics check! My problem with this test is I think it's a flawed concept, and this is backed up by the pilot to some extent - and I could easily see a case where a child who desperately needs help, but gets the requisite 'score' on the test is then denied help, because 'they passed the test'.

If they get the requisite score on the screening check, then they won't necessarily need phonics help - it doesn't preclude them receiving help on the other aspects of reading though.

I still think the benefits of this outweigh any perceived negatives, of which I am still not convinced, having successfully carried out this activity day to day with many, many children.

Feenie, I've seen, particularly children with ASD type problems, tests like this be used to 'prove' the child doesn't need help. And a teacher who is under-performing is more likely to use a test score incorrectly imo.

I think for me, the negatives still outweigh the positives - ie the waste of curriculum time, both in preparing, and administering the test (12 hours just to administer it is the estimate), and also in the anomalous results which I am convinced it will throw up.

(I do understand what you meant about not necessarily needing phonics help, but I could see the phonics test being used to prove the child is doing 'fine at reading' - and I have seen this sort of thing happen lots, particularly during the statementing process - imagine a child with severe autism, with fantastically clear speech, whose mother is told she has imagined it, because he has such good language skills - she argues 'but he doesn't understand words' and is told she is neurotic, because the 'expert' is assuming good speech means good language.)

Interesting - the children I have seen with ASD have tended to have huge phonics problems, in fact out of the only 3 children to have left our school not reading at a level 4 in the last 7 years, 2 had ASD and could not get to grips with phonics at all. All 3 went on to a special school.

With respect, I don't think you have the experience to make those kind of predictions, Lily.

Why do you imagine there will be a waste of curriculum time Lily?

But all that's a completely different argument, Lily - and has absolutely nothing to do with helping the 98 odd % of children that ensuring phonics is taught properly will help. Those problems have always existed, and will neither be heightened or eradicated because of this screening check.

Why a waste of curriculum time? Because 12 hours of the teacher's time will be taken up administering the test (that is the estimate from the report).

Why do you think I have no experience of i) education, ii) dyslexia, iii) ASD?

"Crikey. 5 year olds not knowing "starling" or "scribe" shock. Any 5 year old who'd been read to would know those words." Bonsoir with this comment you almost come across as a joke poster. I've read to my child every night since she was a baby, none of the books have had the word scribe in them. And the suggestion of the inclusion of the hyper-long and complicated sounds Mrz made up is ludicrous. Children are not performing monkeys; I'm sure we could get them to do amazing tricks if we try hard enough - but at what price to their enjoyment of their precious childhood. This is not to take away the importance of good phonics teaching and teacher training. Thanks Mrz for pointing out that the children are supposed to sound out the 'words' and not have to identify whether they are made up or real. That makes more sense.

Because of pretty much everything you have posted

I can't see it taking up 12 hours, tbh, from what I've seen.

I agree with rumpeta there re starling and scribe - my Y1 ds has also been read to every night since he was a baby and wouldn't know those words.

tbh feenie, I'm too weary with this thread.

Everyone is just 'lalalala I'm right, no-one else can possibly have a point' - which is what I meant about entrenched positions below.

You all feel justified in claiming I have 'no experience of these things', knowing nothing about me, whilst simulataneously denouncing my child's reading ability, on the basis of a few posts on the internet.

I personally think it's good to debate these things. Argument does tend to make for an entrenchment of positions though.

WRT ASD - I've seen the problems that families have in persuading professionals that their child needs help, especially when they have decent speech - because speech is not the same as language, in the same way as phonics is not reading. But the two are correlated, incorrectly, and used to 'prove' a child does not need help.

Similarly, a child who has problems with 'reading', but has a decent grasp of 'phonics' (ie has processing problems) can be 'proved' not to need help by a national test such as this.

I've seen it happen. It's v distressing for parents and children, but happens so much.

It's not really a different argument - it's the same argument as I've been making all along that, the test will flag up some children who don't need help, miss others who do, and be used as a 'reason to give support' or a 'reason to withold support'.

It happens.

12 hours of the teachers time a few minutes out of the curriculum for each child ...
The children will still be taught while the tests are administered ... it doesn't have to be administered by the Y1 teacher but if it is the rest of the class will be taught by another teacher.

Most of the 12 hours will be the teachers own time outside school hours.

What I find odd is that most of my concerns and worries about the test are highlighted in the open letter to michael gove, begging him to reconsider this test, and signed by 19 representatives of teachers, literacy associations and special needs organisations.

yet you 'experts' all prefer to 'prove me wrong' by denigrating my right to an intelligent opinion.

I'm not the only person saying that these are concerns. I'm not the only person questioning the test.

Clearly, no-one 'knows' what the efficacy of the test will be. Doesn't invalidate my concerns, and especially when those concerns are shared by people who actually ran the pilot study.

Certainly the Y1 teachers I've talked to have grave concerns about it.

Lily with respect have you considered the reasons the teaching unions are against the test.

I also know Y1 teachers only they aren't concerned about the test (although IMHO some of them should be)

"Everyone is just 'lalalala I'm right, no-one else can possibly have a point' - which is what I meant about entrenched positions below... I personally think it's good to debate these things. Argument does tend to make for an entrenchment of positions though."
I don't know, Lily. I've enjoyed the debate. It's been quite fierce but I'm very sure that lots of people following the thread have got lots out of it. One editor of a magazine I know of who is following the debate thought it was pretty well informed.
Anyway, to put in my two pennath again, I'm not saying for a minute that I think I know it all but I've trained thousands of teachers in how to teach phonics and many of the literacy advisers and university lecturers I've seen giving advice to teachers don't hold a candle to the kinds of advice being given on Mumsnet generally from Maizie, Feenie and Mrz (as well as others). And the reason for that is that they are all there testing the practice against the theory every day and have a very good idea of what works.

You all feel justified in claiming I have 'no experience of these things', knowing nothing about me, whilst simulataneously denouncing my child's reading ability, on the basis of a few posts on the internet.

I do know that I do this every day, and am passionate about the benefits of every child learning to read. I'm not saying that you have no experience - I can tell by what you are saying that you don't teach reading though, and that's the point.

No one denounced your ds's reading ability - several experienced teachers gave you advice on what you now need to look out for, given a very important clue, which you refuse to take. No reader is perfect you know, and your dcs are not the finished article - I am a voracious reader of 38 years, but still encounter new vocabulary most weeks (usually playing online Scrabble ).

Feenie, honestly, I'm not someone who is just 'oh my child is perfect' - tbh, with ds2, because he had such a slow start, I am constantly surprised he can do anything at all. I don't 'refuse' to take hints, but equally, I don't think a snapshot on a talkboard is enough to start making judgements (or even suggestions) about his reading abilities - I'm absolutely confident in his phonic ability, the only reason I even brought him in was because I was really interested in the 2 words he didn't get immediately right on the test!!!

Wrt the older children, again, I only brought them into it, because I was interested in what they said, that they 'don't use their phonics at all in reading now, they might do a little bit in writing'.

Doesn't mean they're not encountering new words all the time, on the whole if they read a new word, it's a word they've encountered in their vocabulary, as I think their speech is ahead of their reading. If it's not, then they ask me what it means, or look it up in a dictionary. Again, a tiny snapshot on a talkboard, but you make all sorts of judgements about them and about me.

You're right I don't teach people to read words. I do work a LOT with infant aged children, both mainstream and SEN, and a lot of the work I do is parallel to teaching reading, and has a lot of similarities (don't want to go into what it is as would totally identify me). And I've got nearly 20 years experience of doing that. And the biggest thing I've learned is that all kids are different, and that flexibility is the key.

mrz - I don't get whether you are pro or against the test - sometimes you are arguing for it, sometimes against it. I am on the whole anti, so not sure what your point about the unions is - if they are against it, that's interesting, but given that I'm also against it, on the whole, am not going to argue with them!

The letter to Gove included several of my concerns. So, you guys saying 'oh you don't have any experience' is kind of irrelevant, as all those people on the letter have a massive amount of collective experience.

flexibility is the key

But this flexibility of which you speak - that's the excuse teachers use to cling to mixed methods, which actually damage some children's reading ability and worse, damages their self esteem and confidence.

Some people on the letter have different agendas, Lily. Christine Blower, for example, is someone whom I am very happy to defend my position on pensions, but knows absolutely sod all about reading- and as an ex-secondary teacher, why would she? Don't believe all you hear.

Feenie, I'm sure you are a fantastic teacher, but you are being so frustrating.

Something that parents find difficult with primary teachers is the "don't you have an opinion, we are the experts" approach. Educationally, perhaps, on their children? Not so much.

Flexibility - I didn't say 'mixed methods' - but flexibility of approach. In terms of this test, one obvious way of being flexible is applying it when the child is ready, rather than a fixed point in Y1, as one of my main gripes is that it is confusing for a more able reader (and this is backed up by both the report and the letter). There's the obvious age discrepancies as well - a year's difference in age makes a LOT of difference at age 5-6, and I'm not sure how you can hope to draw a useful comparison, or even have similar expectations, and there is no suggestion of an age adjustment.

Similarly, a child who is like my dd, and would have failed this test, because of not being able to say the made up words out loud, because she knew they were wrong - doing the test in reverse would have been far easier, and would have 'proved' her phonics ability - eg she would have known the word 'jound', but wouldn't have dared say it, if you said to her 'how do you think you spell jound, she would have got it perfectly, and wouldn't have had the same issues.

Flexibility does not mean a mixture of methods though, and you should not put words in people's mouths.